D40x w/ kit lens sharper than Canon 40D (w/ a L lens)?

[shuo_zhao]

Hi everyone,

 

I recently purchased a Canon 40D (w/ the 17-40 f/4L lens) as a more "serious"

alternative to my D40x. I almost got a Nikon D300, but the 40D purchase was

made instead because of its lower cost (so I can invest in better glasses), and

the somewhat wide-spread, yet controversial opinion of "40D is just as good as

D300 in things that counts".

 

To check whether I made a good investment, I tested the Canon 40D alongside my

trusty D40x (w/ the 18-55 kit lens). I was shocked to find out that the 40D

clearly delivers "inferior" images than my little D40x. Compare to the D40x,

the 40D seems to have a more limited dynamic range, the colors appear dull, the

images themselves are generally soft (despite the L lens). While hoping my new

camera can help remedy my D40x's slight tendency to overexpose in aparture

priority mode, I instead realize that the Canon 40D seems get the metering

wrong very frequently (both overexposure and underexposure, no matter which

metering mode it's in). Furthermore, the 40D's AF tend to become ineffective

while a detail-rich scene is being photographed.

 

*Since the majority of my photos are family pictures and random snap shots, I

purposely tested the cameras shooting JPEG. I did change the Canon's picture

style setting around: it didn't work out too well.

 

I got 'til this weekend to return the Canon. I think I might have made a

mistake buying it. If I return the Canon, I will most likely go ahead and get a

D300.

 

What you think about this & what I should do?

All educated thoughts are welcomed.

[Rene11664880918]

I don't know the Canon system at all. Since photography is just a hobby for me I find it too

expensive to have 2 systems going.

 

I don't know but I wouldn't believe that a 40D is as good as a D300 in things that count as

you said. Everywhere i read it seems that every one agrees that D3/300 are the best

cameras at the time.

 

My advice would be to keep only 1 system. It seems that you like your D40x and if that is

the case stick with nikon.

 

Rene'

[joe_a2]

Shuo....You might consider returning the Canon and getting some better glass for the D40x with your money. The 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S is one possibility, and the 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S DX lens is another. I'd certainly take "the 17-55DX and a 70-300VR on the D40x" over "the 18-55 kit lens on a D300".

[keith_lubow]

Every reflected meter is wrong a lot. It's simply a lousy way to decide an exposure in most hand held situations. Different cameras are simply wrong in different ways due do different metering patterns, matrix computers, etc. Also, each processes the pix differently. Get (and learn to properly use) an incident meter, shoot flat jpegs and do your own edits, and I'll bet the camera files will be close in quality, as are the pix from most cameras made by any maker. Additionally, the 17-40 is not all that sharp at 100%, especially wide open. It may be an L, but it is still a relatively cheap zoom. Remove any and all forms of automation in the image processing if you want to accurately compare the two. No AWB, flat contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc. If there is much of a difference in skilled hands, I would be extremely surprised.

 

Keith

[shuo_zhao]

Keith, thanks for the advises.

 

Joe, I decided to get a better camera because:

 

#1 I want to have better AF than what the D40x can offer.

 

#2 I want to be able to get AF w/ all lens.

 

#3 I want to have more direct controls (too many things buried in the menus).

 

#4 I want to have a bigger and more sturdy camera.

 

To be honest, a D80 is good enough. But the D300 is a very sweet camera.

 

Also, I currently have the 18-55, the 50 f/1.8, and the 18-70. If I get the D300, I will most likely use the 18-70 (even if temperorily).

* I actually don't need the 17-55's f/2.8 speed with what I do.

[elliot1]

Chances are the lens is the problem rather than the 40D.

 

 

"While hoping my new camera can help remedy my D40x's slight tendency to overexpose..."

 

Set your exposure compensation to -.3 or -.7.

 

"a D80 is good enough"

 

Go for a D200 if you can't afford the D300 - the meter on the D80 is not quite as good as the D200's. Image quality between the D40, D40x, D80 and D200 is pretty much the same.

 

Want a bigger and sturdier D40x? Get a battery grip (about $50).

[Peter_in_PA]

It might be that if you use the Canon for a while and get to know it, you'll get better images

out of it. Honestly, Canon and Nikon are about the same on image quality. It's just what

you're comfortable with.

 

You're obviously more comfortable with the Nikon. Stick with it. Return the 40D.

[ShunCheung]

Shao, I wonder what your test procedure was. Unless you have everything on a sturdy tripod and use high shutter speeds to stop any motion and vibration, it is hard to evaluate sharpness. I have never used a Canon 40D or their 17-40mm/f4 lens, but I am sure that is a good combination.

 

For family pictures and random snapshots, the D300 is an overkill. The D80 should be sufficient, but its metering issue is fairly well known, although I doubt that it is that serious. At this point of the D80's product cycle, I think it pays to wait for its successor, especially since you alrady have a D40x (which was announced merely a year ago) that can bridge you over.

[johninjapan2000]

Frankly, I don't see the point in going with two systems. Everybody's different and it's none of my business, but...

 

I also lust after the D300, one of the most perfect machines ever made.

 

My D60 "exposes for print", too, you might say. I just adjust as needed. I can always buy the D300 if I want perfection...

 

john

[elliot1]

John, each system has its advantages and disadvantages.

 

But I tend to agree with your assessment of the D300.

[akira]

For your criteria, I would return Canon 40D and 17-40 zoom, sell D40x and all Nikon lenses you currently own and then buy Nikon D300 and Nikkor 17-55/2.8.

 

Cheaper alternatve: return Canon 40D and 17-40 zoom, sell all Nikon lenses you currently own and buy Nikkor 17-55/2.8. Faster lens offers better (faster) AF.

 

As some of the previous posters say, having two different system would make little sense especially if two systems are similar: you almost duplicate the main zoom range (18-70/3.5-4.5 vs 17-40/4) and pixel counts (both 10MP).

[robbie_robertson]

Not that I don't mind being a Canon basher, but in all fairness: Two of my German colleagues bought Canon Rebel XTI cameras at the same time I bought my D40X. Using kit lenses and JPEG images, we drove up the Columbia river gorge and took a lot of pictures at similar settings from the same spot. My colleagus commented the D40X pictures showed more vibrant color and better contrast. This is purely due to the differning internal algorithms for contrast and color processing in the cameras, and Nikon is rumored to be better. Once my colleages and I started snapping and processing RAW images on PS Elements 6.0 there was no discernable difference in the quality of the pictures. Just something to keep in mind.

[tonybeach]

You may or may not be happier with a D300; like the 40D it's a pro camera that requires more user input (although many report excellent out of the camera results with the D300).

 

I have to take issue with Keith's assertion that the camera's meter is "simply a lousy way to decide metering in most hand held situations." I have found the exact opposite to be true with my D200 and D300 cameras using Center weighted average or Spot metering; Matrix metering and its relationship to Active D-Lighting, Picture Controls or Image Optimization settings is another matter though and I have everything turned down on my cameras (saturation, contrast, and sharpening).

[mawz]

The high-production L lenses tend to have variable QC. Likely you got a bad example of the 17-40L. A good example should easily outperform the 18-55DX.

 

I'd also try turning up the sharpening and choosing a punchier Picture Style.

 

But I do have to wonder, given the pricing, why a 40D over a D200 or D80 when you already own Nikon glass.

[shuo_zhao]

To Elliot:

 

>> "Chances are the lens is the problem rather than the 40D."

 

There goes the 17-40 f/4L nightmare.

 

>> ""While hoping my new camera can help remedy my D40x's slight tendency to overexpose..."

 

Set your exposure compensation to -.3 or -.7."

 

Thanks for the suggestion Elliot. I have to point out that might not work all the time, as the camera doesn't overexpose all the time (in fact it's only a occassional, yet annoying thing).

 

>> "Go for a D200 if you can't afford the D300 - the meter on the D80 is not quite as good as the D200's. Image quality between the D40, D40x, D80 and D200 is pretty much the same."

 

I have the money for the D300. I brought it today. Thanks for the suggestion though.

 

>> "Want a bigger and sturdier D40x? Get a battery grip (about $50)."

 

I don't think Nikon makes a D40x battery grip. A bunch third party manufacturers do...

 

Peter: "You're obviously more comfortable with the Nikon. Stick with it. Return the 40D."

 

Good point.

 

Shun: "At this point of the D80's product cycle, I think it pays to wait for its successor, especially since you alrady have a D40x (which was announced merely a year ago) that can bridge you over."

 

My problem with the D40x is not its age, but its simplified P&S style controls and design (plus the AF issue). I think the D300 will remain good even when the D90 comes out, just like the way D200 was compared to a D80.

 

Akira, you made a good point. I returned the Canon today.

So bad neither my D40x nor my nikon lenses worth a lot in the market now, so that defeats the benefits of selling them. I just got the D300 today, but I don't have the money for the 17-55 f/2.8 for now.

I actually have a 18-55 on the D40x, and a 18-70 brought off ebay for the D300. I think the 18-70 is good enough for what I do. If I need to use a fast lens, I can always use my 50 1.8.

 

Robbie, what you talked about is exactly what concerns me. I need to be able to get good JPEG images out of the camera. In fact, the result of my testings is very much identical to what happened when you compared your D40x images with those XTi images.

 

Thanks Anthony. You and Keith both made a good point.

I have to point out that although using the camera's meter is not the best way to decide metering, it is very convenient while taking random snapshots.

 

Adam:

 

>> "The high-production L lenses tend to have variable QC. Likely you got a bad example of the 17-40L. A good example should easily outperform the 18-55DX."

 

That's exactly what I suspected.

 

>> "I'd also try turning up the sharpening and choosing a punchier Picture Style."

 

I essentially tried every single picture style setting possible. It didn't work out as well as I would like.

 

>> "But I do have to wonder, given the pricing, why a 40D over a D200 or D80 when you already own Nikon glass."

 

I know that's the common sense, but I only own a very few Nikkors.

[keith_lubow]

I'm not in any way suggesting that your meter is useless. I am simply stating that reflected meters tend to produce a lot of variation, and also that this variation is different from camera to camera. It is most often preferable to set and use a constant exposure based on a "lighting situation" than on reflected light. Perhaps "lousy way" was a bit harsh. I didn't mean to make a camera meter seem useless. They get you a usable shot most of the time. It's just that if you are comparing the same shots from two different cameras, you want them to have the same settings of aperture and time. Due to different meter/matrix designs, both cameras will likely read a bit differently.

 

Keith

[shuo_zhao]

I see.